Follow us on LinkedIn to see future News.
April 1, 2024
Marianne Wayland sued her former employer, OSF Healthcare System, alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). She argued that OSF should have adjusted its performance expectations to reflect her reduced hours while she was on leave.
The lower court entered judgment for OSF before trial, finding that OSF justifiably terminated Wayland’s employment because she failed to meet its expectations. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated that judgment and remanded the case for trial, finding that a genuine issue of material fact[1] existed regarding the amount of FMLA leave Wayland took and whether OSF properly took that leave into account when evaluating her performance. Wayland v. OSF Healthcare System, No. 23-1541 (7th Cir. Feb. 28, 2024).
Wayland managed approximately 30 employees in OSF’s Institute of Learning, a department that trains OSF workers to integrate new operations into OSF. In 2017 and 2018, OSF expanded significantly, creating more work and shorter deadlines for Wayland’s team. In 2018, Wayland’s team had four months to absorb two new hospitals (previously, the team had six to 12 months to integrate one hospital into OSF).
In October 2018, OSF approved Wayland’s request for both continuous and intermittent FMLA leave. OSF approved intermittent leave for one to two days per week beginning in October 2018. It approved continuous leave for one month, from November 7 to December 10, 2018.
The parties disputed the amount of leave that Wayland took. Wayland contended that she took off more than six weeks of work between October 2018 and April 2019, an average of one day per week. OSF contended that Wayland took only ten days of leave – nine days of continuous leave in November 2018 and one day of intermittent leave in April 2019.
Managing OSF’s accelerated goals while taking approved leave was challenging for Wayland. She did not meet all of the goals and deadlines that applied when she worked full time. Wayland also struggled to manage her staff and keep up with the increased workload. Wayland discussed her concerns with her supervisor. However, OSF insisted that Wayland had to complete all projects under the increased goals and deadlines.
In May 2019, one month after Wayland stopped taking intermittent FMLA leave, OSF put her on a performance improvement plan and terminated her employment in July 2019.
Wayland sued, alleging that OSF both interfered with her rights under the FMLA and retaliated against her for taking leave. The lower court found that Wayland failed to show a causal connection between the exercise of her FMLA rights and the termination of her employment. However, the Seventh Circuit concluded that a jury could find that OSF interfered with or retaliated against Wayland’s use of leave by holding her to standards that were at least as demanding as when she worked full time, and then terminating her employment for falling short. It further held that a jury could find that OSF’s reliance on other events to terminate Wayland’s employment is pretextual.[2]
Employers: The FMLA prohibits you from “interfering with” an employee’s use of leave or “retaliating against” an employee for taking leave. The statute does not require you to adjust performance standards for the time an employee is on the job. However, the FMLA may require you to adjust performance expectations to avoid penalizing an employee for being absent during approved leave.
This article is designed to provide one perspective regarding recent legal developments, and is not intended to serve as legal advice. Always consult an attorney with specific legal issues.
[1] A genuine issue is present if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party, and a fact is material if it might bear on the outcome of the case.
[2] One judge on the Seventh Circuit panel dissented, finding – as the lower court found – that Wayland failed to show a causal connection between the exercise of her FMLA rights and the termination of her employment.
